Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:31:54 +0200, Martin wrote:
'If' I've heard right, something called neonicotinoids (sp) are to be banned. Does anyone know what products will disappear from garden centre shelves? Quite a lot will be banned or modified but, in my opinion, that won't be such a bad thing. I have been gardening without pesticides for years and I'm quite pleased with the results. You don't grow 200 acres of rape seed or anything else for a living do you? I am sure you would agree that pressure should be maintained on Bayer et al to design/manufacture pesticides that do not have potentially adverse side effects on wildlife, particularly on something as valuable to plant life as the bee. Tests should be done in a scientific manner, not driven by the press and ill informed TV programmes wanting something dramatic to report. Absolutely. Is there any evidence that the tests are not being done in a scientific manner? As far as I was aware the research into neonicotinoid side effects was raised during research into bee colony losses in Europe dating back at least 5 years and people like Neumann have a sound reputation. Whilst the news media may have picked up on various aspects of this more recently I really do not think that they will have had much impact on the research - the politics are of course a different matter. -- rbel |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Monday, 22 April 2013 18:06:52 UTC+1, rbel wrote:
Absolutely. Is there any evidence that the tests are not being done in a scientific manner? As far as I was aware the research into neonicotinoid side effects was raised during research into bee colony losses in Europe dating back at least 5 years and people like Neumann have a sound reputation. Whilst the news media may have picked up on various aspects of this more recently I really do not think that they will have had much impact on the research - the politics are of course a different matter. -- rbel We should ignore the utterances of politicians and the hysterical ill informed partial outpourings of the media (mmr should have taught us that) Just find and read the science. Rod |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
In article , Martin
writes It didn't say that. It was typical BBC dumbed down science. Whereas other channels don't do that? Sounds like another boring BBC bashing. [little snip] The whole programme would be better if Countryfile didn't constantly switch between topics and then have to recap what had been said earlier. This is common in BBC programmes I find it very irritating, the BBC probably think it is entertaining. It is a peak time magzine programme with a Sunday pm audience profile - and without time to go into depth on the science, I presume. Even the dedicated science programmes have to take a balance between people that know nothing of the subject and experts that will view it as dumbed down. Not that I'm disagreeing that a lot of it could still be called dumbed down - but the nature of the programme/slot will vary this - and moreover, I don't see much different on non-BBC programmes. -- regards andyw |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On 23/04/2013 10:33, news wrote:
In article , Martin writes It didn't say that. It was typical BBC dumbed down science. Whereas other channels don't do that? Sounds like another boring BBC bashing. [little snip] The whole programme would be better if Countryfile didn't constantly switch between topics and then have to recap what had been said earlier. This is common in BBC programmes I find it very irritating, the BBC probably think it is entertaining. It is a peak time magzine programme with a Sunday pm audience profile - and without time to go into depth on the science, I presume. Even the dedicated science programmes have to take a balance between people that know nothing of the subject and experts that will view it as dumbed down. Not that I'm disagreeing that a lot of it could still be called dumbed down - but the nature of the programme/slot will vary this - and moreover, I don't see much different on non-BBC programmes. Now there's a chance to use the Red button, When topics like this crop up they could have "Click red button for more information" Or go to www.BBC........ etc for more info. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:31:29 +0100, Jeff Layman
wrote: If you did, and your food supply for the next year was decimated by locusts, you might have a different view on pesticide use. Or just eat the locusts! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
In article , Martin
writes On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:33:56 +0100, news wrote: In article , Martin writes It didn't say that. It was typical BBC dumbed down science. Whereas other channels don't do that? Sounds like another boring BBC bashing. Especially if you snip the context. I saw no context that would explain why it should be 'typical BBC dumbed down science' as opposed to 'typical TV dumbed down science' [little snip] The whole programme would be better if Countryfile didn't constantly switch between topics and then have to recap what had been said earlier. This is common in BBC programmes I find it very irritating, the BBC probably think it is entertaining. It is a peak time magzine programme with a Sunday pm audience profile - and without time to go into depth on the science, I presume. Even the dedicated science programmes have to take a balance between people that know nothing of the subject and experts that will view it as dumbed down. Dedicated science programmes do not have to be for everybody. But Countryfile does Anyway, I was intending to refer to 'close to' peak time, often science-based documentaries. Their presentation can run a gamut from highly technical, the details of which may well be beyond the average reasonably intelligent person - to technical that is presented in such a way as to inform that same person. I've seen both. Some programmes are made that do neither - although probably fewer of them on BBC than elsewhere. Some programmes that ostensibly include scientific explanations are dreadful, completely failing to set the scene or address any reasonable doubts as to the conclusions. I think they are more often bad programmes rather than dumbed down - and again, I think you'll find more of them not on the BBC. But it looks like we're not likely to agree on this. Not that I'm disagreeing that a lot of it could still be called dumbed down - but the nature of the programme/slot will vary this - and moreover, I don't see much different on non-BBC programmes. There isn't any difference. There should be. Commercial stations need high viewing numbers otherwise they don't attract advertisers and income. The BBC gets income whatever it shows. Only in a very superfical way. If it doesn't get the viewers, it has problems justifying the funding. And its usually under the sort of pressure from BBC haters that means its damned whether it does or it doesn't. The BBC used to set standards. And what if you set the standards but everyone chooses to ignore them? Would you still get the funding? It is not obliged to target those with the lowest intelligence or poor education. I don't think it necessarily does but there are horses for courses. Countryfile is a peaktime Sunday slot with a magazine style covering a wide range of items. It might not get everything right, but what always does? 80-90% of BBC programmes are repeats. They have plenty of time to show serious science programmes. Countryfile spent a lot of time on pesticides and bees, and recapping what had been said earlier in the programme. It wouldn't have taken much time to have given a more balanced view of the problem, but of course saying that 5% of bees deaths can be attributed to pesticides is neither dramatic nor entertaining. They might have least got the facts right about the proposed EU Commissioners pesticide ban, which was rejected by EU member states at the beginning of March I don't deny that there is dumbed down science. But I do dispute the impression given that it is the BBC that needs to be blamed for typical dumbed down science. -- regards andyw |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:08:29 +0200, Martin wrote:
There isn't any difference. There should be. Commercial stations need high viewing numbers otherwise they don't attract advertisers and income. The BBC gets income whatever it shows. The BBC used to set standards. It is not obliged to target those with the lowest intelligence or poor education. 80-90% of BBC programmes are repeats. They have plenty of time to show serious science programmes. Countryfile spent a lot of time on pesticides and bees, and recapping what had been said earlier in the programme. It wouldn't have taken much time to have given a more balanced view of the problem, but of course saying that 5% of bees deaths can be attributed to pesticides is neither dramatic nor entertaining. They might have least got the facts right about the proposed EU Commissioners pesticide ban, which was rejected by EU member states at the beginning of March I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4 that are worth watching. From memory the EC proposals to restrict the use of neonicotinoids failed to get the necessary qualified majority in an EU vote but the Commission have not dropped the proposition. I understood that they were awaiting a response from Bayer et al before proceeding. -- rbel |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:17 +0100, rbel wrote:
I am sure you would agree that pressure should be maintained on Bayer et al to design/manufacture pesticides that do not have potentially adverse side effects on wildlife, particularly on something as valuable to plant life as the bee. On that point we agree. OTOH, Bayer have replaced their Provado Ultimate Bug Killer that contained imidacloprid with a new formulation containing thiacloprid which is not as bad for bees and is not mentioned in the EC's proposals. ISTR they made that change before the hoo-haa blew up. But much more will be achieved if those that simply pontificate start to acknowledge that pesticides do exist and people do use them and, instead of simply ignoring their existence, start to educate people about pesticide implications and safer use. I use Provado UBK when the lily beetle population here gets too big to handle by squishing or feeding to the cat and I want the systemic effect. But I spray late in the evening when beneficial insects are not flying (and I check plants carefully for any resting ones). And I remove the anthers (pollen being potentially fatal to cats) so there is no pollen for bees to take and hence no risk to them. I never spray more than twice in a season and usually only once. -- Cheers, Jake ======================================= Urgling from the East end of Swansea Bay where the showers of April have arrived! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:29:13 +0200, Martin wrote:
From memory the EC proposals to restrict the use of neonicotinoids failed to get the necessary qualified majority in an EU vote but the Commission have not dropped the proposition. I understood that they were awaiting a response from Bayer et al before proceeding. The EU Commissioners need to provide scientific proof that the pesticides cause a problem to bees. The onus to provide proof is on the EU Commissioners, not Bayer. The EU Commissioners can't impose a ban without the agreement of member states. From a practical perspective it is, of course, unlikely that Bayer will provide anything that will be sufficient to mollify the Commission (eg the suggestion of wider field margins - which could well help but is not deliverable by the pesticide manufacturers unless they pay the farmers to implement them). Given the Commission's stance on this matter it is very likely to persuade just sufficient member states to amend their previous position to achieve implementation. It will be interesting to observe the machinations. -- rbel |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:16:27 +0100, Jake
wrote: In this case, the Soil Association and similar organisations have quite effectively alerted the farming lobby to the issues. The farming lobby has got at the Governments of Europe and they have reacted. Whilst I have little time for the Soil Association and the rest of the organics lobby (IMHO they are both misguided and ineffectual), in this case the blame undoubtedly lays elsewhere. In this country the NFU, CLA and TFA would have been rapidly alerted to the potential problem by the Crop Protection Association (used to be called the agri chemical association) years ago when the first papers were being published. Since then the CPA have maintained a steady stream of defensive news releases. The NFU in particular is an effective lobbying organisation, one that the government (of any persuasion) tends to listen to over and above public opinion. -- rbel |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote:
I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4 that are worth watching. I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim science' (whatever that means), when he stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in ~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely ignoring the previous measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in 200BC. -- Terry Fields |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:09:34 +0200, Martin wrote:
On 24 Apr 2013 09:47:36 GMT, Terry Fields wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote: I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4 that are worth watching. I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim science' (whatever that means) It means that in terms of science and attitudes to science, the Muslim world was hundreds of years ahead of the Christian world. And a millennium behind the Greeks, and centuries behind the Indians Blindingly obvious or what? Is it? It certainly isn't the scientific method - which, we are told, was invented by Muslims. , when he stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in ~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely ignoring the previous measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in 200BC. AFAIR he covered those in another programme. He even gave a demonstration of how the Greeks measured the circumference of the world. Well, the scientific method is to build on what went before. -- Terry Fields |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Pesticides
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:26:40 +0200, Martin wrote:
On 24 Apr 2013 13:11:36 GMT, Terry Fields wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:09:34 +0200, Martin wrote: On 24 Apr 2013 09:47:36 GMT, Terry Fields wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote: I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4 that are worth watching. I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim science' (whatever that means) It means that in terms of science and attitudes to science, the Muslim world was hundreds of years ahead of the Christian world. And a millennium behind the Greeks, and centuries behind the Indians What does that say about Western civilisation and Christianity? Who cares? The issue is the correct attribution of the work, in which 'muslim scientists' came third after the Greeks and Indians. Blindingly obvious or what? Is it? It was to others. Ad populem. Does it upset you that Arabs were a thousand years ahead of Western European Christians? The issue is the correct attribution of the work, in which 'muslim scientists' came third after the Greeks and Indians. It certainly isn't the scientific method - which, we are told, was invented by Muslims. , when he stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in ~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely ignoring the previous measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in 200BC. AFAIR he covered those in another programme. He even gave a demonstration of how the Greeks measured the circumference of the world. Well, the scientific method is to build on what went before. They did. Did they? It never stopped Isaac Newton rediscovering things. Did he steal Greek discoveries too? -- Terry Fields |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pests, Pesticides and GMO regulations (fwd) | sci.agriculture | |||
Advice on growing roses without pesticides | North Carolina | |||
Pesticides and farm kids | sci.agriculture | |||
Compost--Heat and Herbicides/Pesticides | Gardening | |||
Biosociopathic Injury: Pesticides blamed in decline of 3 additional frog species | alt.forestry |